Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Nuance

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Nuance

TPLN 23:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I call dibs on this one =) --Kit talk 11:25 3 March

Humour:	5	First I'll let you know there will be no nuances in my opinions! ;) Now then, how humourous was this article. Hmm. For now I'll stick with a 6 and explain why. I'll also try to demonstrate it has a lot of potential. So why only 5. I really enjoyed the original and witty jokes you planted throughout the article. Its style too was appreciated. Some articles dont do well when to personal but this one is right one. Things like "Am I stuttering? I don't think so!" keep the reader close to you. It keeps them engaged. You also managed to use them quite sparingly as to not overdo it and annoy the reader. The article in its whole on the other hand is a bit confusing. Your prose (Ill explain further down) has one point that doesnt help the humour. Also Im not always sure whose side you are actually on. Obviously, as your opening paragrafs says people should appreciate nuance. The funny thing (obvious as well) is that you state so in a very "un"nuanced way. But then you go on about killing everyone with an opinion that is a bit nuanced. (At least thats how I understood it). So what will it be? Bless nuanced people or kill them? Which brings me to the killing thing. Yes it is funny but it seems a bit too much focused on that. Is there nothing else to say about nuance that some guys really should be rounded up and killed? (it may sound a bit too harsh but I overstate things to be clear). It would be really great if you had a few more ideas/paragrafs about other things concerning nuance simply because the funniest things about your article are its concept, style(as previously explained) and small random comments/jokes.
Concept:	9	I hesitated giving a 9 and even thougt of a 10 for a second. I then figured I should give less because; lets face it its not that original. Like many great articles on uncyclopedia you write about a theme in a way that illustrates that particular (or opposite) theme. Many have done so before and many will in the future but its still an awesome concept. And you really nailed it! Hence the +9! The best example of your idea is your opening paragraf. Its both subtle and obvious at the same time. It really made me want to read more which is what it is supposed to do. You also found a nice balance between being personal and objectiv. Those small personal comments do the trick but careful not to overuse them. In my opinion the "An Ak47 ought to do the trick" is on the verge of too much and could be striked. Other than that; great idea, just try to follow it through in a more meticulous way. Make sure not to strafe from it too much. Develop that idea while cutting down on the "kill them all" thingy (again I overstated it).
Prose and formatting:	6.5	I hesitated between 6 and 7 so I went for 6.5. There is little I can say about your english. You either researched your thoughts quite well to find fitting words or your english is simply three quarters awesome. On the other hand you overdid it in two quite important places. The "migitating factors" paragraf and the "the plan" paragraf. Since your level of english seems quite above average; I do believe you may have wanted to make these specific sentences a bit complex and long to create an effect of overintelligence and lack of nuance or something crazy like that. But; they are too complicated. The first one is on my screen a three lines long sentence. Thats a bit harsh for a sentence where I particularly felt there was probably something funny said or something important explained; but since I had to re-read 2 times to understand it, it lost its humour. The second one (which is the one question) had me thinking a bit too much. I know, you even footnoted that one should think about it; and yes for a small time I can think about it and get it and feel great but if most are like me they'll get stuck a bit too long trying to understand it, thus missing out on the humour once again. Other than that; I stand by my opinion that your english is borderline awesome so keep at it ;)
Images:	7	7 because: 10 points for your first image and caption while only 5 for your 2nd image and respective caption. Where the first one was original and well thought of. The second one felt like something you just put there becasue you couldnt/hadnt the time/didnt bother to find anything better. A bit last minute and non-original basically. If you managed to dig up that first funny image I hav eno doubts you can do better with your second one =)
Miscellaneous:	5	+5 because I like your style and have enjoyed several of your articles/UnNews lately! Keep the great work up mate!
Final Score:	32.5	So in conclusion. It has a great concept. It started perfectly to somehow get a bit stuck on the killing of some group of people. Also, plz clarify whether we like people that are nuanced or not, Im still a bit confused (maybe thats just me being silly/stupid again). Great idea, impressive english l33t n4k3d skillz! Im looking forward more of your stuff! Cheers
Reviewer:	--Kit talk 12:10 3 March

Thanks for the review - overall nice job, and I can see your points about going too farwith the sort of over-the-top "personal" qualities (the AK47 comment and such). And you're right - the second image is pretty weak. I like the caption, but the image I sporked from the existing collection and doesn't really inspire much mirth.

However, it seems one very important factor has been missed, and it may be a concept issue on my part (meaning it's a tough one to present). The idea here is quite opposite from what you stated if I understood you correctly. You said, "But then you go on about killing everyone with an opinion that is a bit nuanced." No no no no no! That would ruin the joke. The joke is that I am advocating killing everyone whose opinions are NOT nuanced. Perhaps you might re-read it and understand that. The joke therefor is that I'm complaining about lack of nuance in a completely nuance-averse way. This also goes to your comment about my "think about it" joke - there is a complex logical paradox in the survey question and the "yes" answer that takes some thought - very much like the paradox of the ACLU defending the rights of the intolerant, but I think even one level more complex. If a complex logical challenge isn't humorous to you because it takes too much thought, I accept that, but that is certainly a matter of taste. There are many of us weirdos who love that stuff.

Anyway, thanks, and I hope you can see where I see an important problem with the review without thinking I reject it - I don't. In fact, it's because I accept the review in general that I hope to correct what is missing.